COMBINATION LAWS.

Mr. Cartwright: rose to present a petition from the master boot and shoemakers of the town of Northampton, relative to the Combination Laws. The petitioners complained strongly of the insubordination of the workmen. They stated, that, some weeks ago, many of the workmen struck for an advance of wages, and remained out of employment for five weeks. The masters then complied with their demand, and all went on satisfactorily for a short time. Since that arrangement, however, the journeymen had struck for a further advance. They had formed themselves into clubs and societies; made various
rules and regulations; and exacted fines from their fellow-workmen, if they did not comply with the regulations so framed. The petitioners further stated, that if they continued to comply with the unreasonable demands or the workmen, they must, in the end, give up all their contracts for the army and navy. They attributed their present situation to the repeal of the combination laws last year, and they called on the House to relieve them from the grievances under which they now laboured, by the adoption of efficient measures. This subject, he observed, was now under the consideration of a committee. The occasion was, however, extremely pressing; and he thought something ought to be done in the present session. He, therefore, would ask the right hon. gentleman, whether it was in his contemplation to propose any further measure on this subject during the present session.

Mr. Huskisson: said, that the hon. gentleman had asked him, whether it was intended to propose any measure this session on a subject which, he agreed with the hon. member, deserved the serious attention of the House—he meant the present state of the country, with regard to the conduct of the workmen, whose practices in forming combinations, were extending themselves to every part of the kingdom. The House were aware that a committee was sitting up stairs, for the purpose of investigating the effect produced by the law of last session. That committee was pursuing its labours with all proper vigilance, and would, he trusted, make a report to the House without the intervention or any great delay. He admitted, with the hon. member, that it was a subject which pressed for decision. It was not his wish, nor that of any gentleman on that committee, to interfere with the meetings, or combinations, as they were called, of those individuals, so far as related to the amount of their own wages. They were at liberty to take all proper means to secure that remuneration for their labour to which they conceived they were entitled—considering the circumstances of a greater demand for labour, or a greater expense incurred in the purchase of provisions. Under circumstances of this nature, they might reasonably ask for larger wages; but they did not stop here. They combined for purposes of the most unjustifiable description: they combined to dictate to their masters the
mode in which they should conduct their business: they combined to dictate whether the master should take an apprentice or not: they combined for the purpose of preventing certain individuals from working: they combined to enforce the principle, that wages should be paid alike to every man, whether he were a good workman or a bad one, and they levied heavy fines on those who refused to agree to their conditions [hear]. What he complained of, on the part of the employers, as well as on the part of those who were willing to labour, was, that the persons thus combined not only prevented the employers from carrying on their business with their assistance, but they prevented individuals who wished to work from getting employment at all. He believed that, at the present moment, a great part of the woollen manufactures were standing still, on account of combinations of this sort. They existed in London; and he understood that they had spread through various parts of the country to a very great extent. He did not wish to resort to the old combination laws, or to any measure that would not give equal protection to the employed as well as to the employer. But unquestionably it was necessary that something should be done to remedy the existing evil. The tyranny of the many would, he apprehended, be allowed to be worse than the tyranny of the few; and he must say, that the conduct of those who kept up these combinations threatened to destroy the peace and prosperity of the manufacturing interests. It was undoubtedly time to remove those evils; and he would, as soon as possible, endeavour to do so, by suggesting some efficient means, for the equal protection of the master and the workman.

Lord Althorp: said, that in the amended law of last session, there was an important omission. It had been forgotten to define clearly what should be the nature of those threats, held out either to masters or to journeymen, that would enable the parties who conceived themselves aggrieved to prosecute. He believed the insubordination was not confined to Northampton. It had extended to Daventry; and, indeed, all over the country. Some alteration should be made in the law, to secure from the effects of threats those workmen who were willing to labour, but who were prevented by an influence of which the present law did not take cognizance.

Mr. E. Ellice: said, that a report would come down in the course of a few days, from the committee who were investigating this subject; the suggestions contained in which, would, no doubt, have their due weight with the House. Nothing could be more satisfactory than what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, who had stated, that no intention existed to re-enact the combination laws. Much of the conduct of those people was, he allowed, perfectly unjustifiable. The House ought, however, to recollect the state from which they had been so suddenly relieved; and if the subject were fairly considered, it could not be doubted that the alteration had, in some instances, created great inconvenience, before a just idea of all the effects of the new system could be formed. He was happy to find that it was not intended to call for the re-enactment of the combination laws; and he hoped that whatever measure might be proposed, the interests of the workmen would be well weighed and protected, and that they would not, as before, be exposed to the oppression of the masters.

General Gascoyne: said, he was not quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. gentleman. He said, that no intention of renewing the combination laws existed; but, there were other points on which the working classes were equally, if not more anxious. A strong sensation had been produced by a rumour which had gone forth that it was the intention of the committee to interfere with societies and associations called Benefit Societies. Such a measure would excite a much stronger sensation than the mere re-enactment of the combination laws. In many of the petitions which had been presented to the House against the re-enactment of those laws, the petitioners denied that they had taken any part in the illegal combinations that had been spoken of; and they very fairly called upon the House not to visit the errors of the few upon the many. Now, he would ask, was it not justifiable, fair, and legal, if men thought they were entitled to larger wages than they received, to unite together for the purpose of accomplishing their object? Had they not a right to assemble in order that they might the more effectually solicit an increase of wages, provided they committed no act of outrage or violence? In his mind, they had a just right to express their
opinions; and therefore he was always opposed to the combination laws. Thirty years ago, so unjust did he think the system, that he had brought in a bill to prevent combinations amongst the masters. In the town of Liverpool there was a body of shipwrights, blockmakers, ropemakers, &c., amounting to 12,000 persons; and he believed it was truly stated in their petition, that they knew not a single instance amongst them, which called for the interference of that House in the re-enactment of those laws. It appeared that they were not to be re-enacted: but he would call upon the right hon. gentleman further to state, whether it was intended to restrain, limit, alter, or to introduce laws, that would operate in any way on the funds of those benefit societies? Those funds were appropriated to the support of those who subscribed to them in the time of sickness; and in many instances they were appropriated to the purchase of tools for workmen, whose tools were not furnished by their employers, and whose finances did not enable them to supply themselves. The Shipwrights' Society, at Liverpool, had existed for thirty-three years. They were building alms-houses; and scarcely a member of that society had applied for parochial relief. When so much good might be effected by such institutions, is the reduction of the poor-rates, he trusted that due care would be taken not to interfere with them unnecessarily.

Mr. Maberly: was sure that what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman would be satisfactory to the House, and to the public at large. Undoubtedly the working-classes had a right to ask for wages in proportion as the price of provisions was enhanced, or as there was a greater demand for labour; but, it was equally true, that they had no right to combine for the purpose of dictating to an employer how he should select his workmen, what number of apprentices he might employ, or whether he might employ an apprentice at all. He understood that a notice had been sent round to the manufacturers in Aberdeen, forbidding them to take any apprentices whatever. If this were the case, it was a most unjustifiable proceeding. It had nothing to do with the rate of wages, but was a dictation to the master, as to the way in which he was to conduct his business.

Mr. Philips: said, it had been asserted, that when the combination laws were re-
pealed, all combinations would immediately cease. He did not agree in the position; in fact, combinations seemed to have increased since the repeal. In that House language ought not to be used, tending to encourage combination on either side. Combination on both sides ought to be guarded against as much as possible. The continuance of combination was, in his opinion, much more likely on the part of the workmen than on that of the masters. There was no motive for separation on the part of the former; but the various interests of the latter presented many motives for separation. With respect to what the gallant general had said, he must observe, that a combination had not long since existed in Liverpool, where excessive violence of conduct had been manifested. Very disgraceful acts had been committed by some of those to whom the gallant general had alluded.

Mr. Hume: said, he believed that what the House wanted was impartial information on this subject. They had as yet received tales from one party, and from one party only; and he would take upon himself to say, that so far as the committee had gone, every inquiry tended to do away with the impression which had been previously made on that House. No excesses had been committed except in Dublin, and there, instead of twenty, only two lives were lost. He would leave Dublin out of the question, and would say, that the evidence before the committee proved that the character of the combination amongst the workmen was entirely changed. Instead of outrage and violence, peace and order appeared in their proceedings. He wished to see the workmen act properly, and therefore lie condemned, in the strongest terms, their interference with apprentices, as being entirely contrary to the principle of that freedom of action which they themselves demanded, and which they had gained. Much had been said about the combination of the men; but, was a combination amongst them ever heard of, without there being also a combination amongst the masters? Would not any landholder in that House, who was selling his wheat for 45s. a quarter, endeavour, if he could, to procure 50s. for it? Nay, would he not keep his wheat back, if he thought he was thereby likely to get 90s. a quarter for it? Why, then, should not the man who only received 2s. 6d. a-day keep back, if he thought by so doing that
he could procure 4s. 6d. a-day? Why should a different system be adopted with regard to the two parties? If a contrary doctrine were maintained, they might introduce laws to raise the price of corn, and to lower the rate of wages. On behalf of the workmen he called on the House to come to no hasty decision, on alleged acts of outrage and violence. If acts of violence had been committed, let them be stated before the committee; which hitherto had not been done. Let not these individuals, on mere assertion, be deprived of that birth-right which they now enjoyed, and which they ought to enjoy under the law.

Mr. Philips: ,
in explanation, said, that in consequence of the repeal of those laws, great excesses had occurred. He was an advocate for altering them; but he was at the same time of opinion, that the repeal of the laws would not put an end to all combinations, and his opinion was correct. The hon. gentleman had said, that no acts of violence had been committed. Need he remind him of what had taken place at Glasgow.

Sir M. W. Ridley: said, he could not allow it to be asserted that the committee had uniformly arrived at that opinion which the hon. member seemed to suppose they entertained. He wished the labouring classes to get as much as they, could, by fair and proper means. They had a right to do so. He would not regulate labour, either by a maximum or a minimum. It was fair that individual labour should have its just reward: but it was another thing, if the workmen proceeded by threats and intimidation. It was a very different matter, if they stepped out of their sphere, and compelled people to work by such and such rules as they pleased. When they adopted that system, it was high time for the House to interfere. He did not wish to forestall the debates to which this question must give rise, nor to state the evidence given before the committee; but he must observe, that those who demanded a quick decision on this subject, ought to recollect that it was necessary to hear both sides. It was necessary, after they had heard those who were complaining, that they should then hear the workmen in their own behalf. With respect to what the gallant general had said, he would merely observe, that not a word about regulating benefit societies had occurred in the committee. What the committee might hereafter recom-
mend, he could not say; but up to this hour, nothing had been proposed for regulating friendly or other societies.

Lord A. Hamilton: said, he was surprised when gentlemen declared that they had heard of no violence. To his knowledge, one man was now at the point of death, in consequence of the beating he had received from the colliers of Stirling, because he had ventured to take lower wages than the members of the combination thought fit to accept. One of the weavers of Glasgow had also been sentenced to a public whipping, and to transportation for life, for an attempt at assassination. The learned judge before whom he was tried stated, that if lord Ellen-borough's act had extended to Scotland, he would have been sentenced to death. He was a friend to the workmen; and he now spoke in behalf of that large body of individuals, who had taken, or who were ready to take, less wage than the associators thought they should. He called on the House and the country to protect them in the right—a right which was denied them by the combined workmen—of appreciating what their labour was worth. He could not see what was going on in Stirlingshire, Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, between two classes of workmen, without feeling the necessity of adopting some measure for the protection of those who were now oppressed by their fellows. On the principle, that every man had a right to bring his labour to the best market, he stood up in defence of a class of persons who were not permitted to do so, but were kept back by threats and violence. On the very same principle which hon. members had advanced when they demanded the repeal of those laws, did he now call on them to protect this wronged class of persons, who were not suffered to work, because they were willing to accept a smaller remuneration than those who were combined together. The combination was not only injurious to the liberties of a large body of workmen, but was exceedingly prejudicial to the interests of the masters, and of the country in general.

Mr. Baring: expressed his hope, that his right hon. friend would not give any answer to the question which had been put to him; because at that moment the inquiry, on which any future proceeding would be founded, was going on in the committee. The measure of last year had passed through the House with a very
general feeling in its favour. But, in his view of the subject, the mere crude simple repeal of those laws was one of the most mischievous measures that the House ever agreed to. It would not now be so easy to place this question on a sound and proper footing as it was last year. The immense alteration that had been at once made would prevent this. The consequence of that alteration was, that every description of trade had been dictated to in the most arbitrary manner; and, if proper measures were not adopted—if this system of combination were suffered to extend—the consequence must be, that it would itself effectually destroy the whole manufacturing interest of the country.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.

Mr. Denman: said, he held in his hand a petition in favour of the Catholic Claims, from the corporation of Nottingham; whose members, in common with many gentlemen in that House, had been made converts to that cause by the lights and information which had been recently afforded on that question. It was well known that this was a whig corporation, and that it had been at the Revolution the very first corporation to congratulate king William on his arrival in this country. He was happy, therefore, to see such a body petitioning parliament for the removal of those laws, which might have been rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time, but Which there was no longer an excuse for continuing. They prayed the House, that the Catholics should be admissible to the fullest possible extent of privileges which the constitution could confer; and, as they claimed the right of serving their country in every station which they shall be found fit to fill, so would they open the door equally to all classes of his majesty's subjects to do the same. The petitioners were quite satisfied that the penal laws now in force were unjust and unnecessary. They discovered danger only in the withholding of the measure. They called for no securities, being perfectly persuaded that none were required. Should any measures of regulation be thought necessary by parliament to accompany the bill of relief, they would leave it to the legislature to provide those measures. But, whatever might be the opinion of parliament, on that point, they should not change their conviction of the necessity and policy of granting the mea-
sure of relief without delay. The petitioners observed a distinction, which unfortunately was too much forgotten in the discussion on this subject; namely that eligibility to office was a very different thing from admission to office. If Catholics were declared to be admissible to power, it by no means followed that any one of them would enter into office. The means of removing disability might, perhaps, be followed by the professional advancement of an individual of high distinction at the bar of Ireland, to a situation which the law at present prevented him from holding. This promotion, however, by no means followed as a matter of course, but must be regulated by the discretion of those in authority, who could as effectually keep back individuals from that promotion, as if a law of disability existed against them. He would remind the House that there was, for instance, an hon. and learned friend of his, (Mr. Brougham), who was perfectly eligible to honour any rank in his profession. Yet he was excluded from it; not indeed by operation of law, but because it seemed fit to the disposers of those honours not to put that gentleman in an office, which his experience entitled him to expect, and which by his abilities he was so well qualified to adorn. Was not this a proof that there could be no danger to the state, from the mere eligibility of Catholics, because, as was seen in the case of his learned friend, their admission to office could at all times be controlled by persons the most interested in, and the most capable of, understanding the source of danger to the state.
Ordered to lie on the table.